Denmark and the United Kingdom obtained special opt outs - BANKING - 101 View Full Document Denmark and the United Kingdom obtained special opt-outs in the original Maastricht Treaty . Both countries are legally exempt from joining the eurozone unless their governments decide otherwise, either by parliamentary vote or referendum . Sweden , which joined the EU in 1995 after the Maastricht Treaty was signed, is required to join the eurozone under the terms of its accession treaty as soon as it fulfils the convergence criteria, which include being part of ERM II for two years. However, the Swedish people turned down euro adoption in a 2003 referendum and since then the country has intentionally avoided fulfilling the adoption requirements by not joining ERM II, which is voluntary. Interest in joining the eurozone increased in Denmark, and initially in Poland, as a result of the 2008 financial crisis. In Iceland, there was an increase in interest in joining the European Union, a pre-condition for adopting the euro. However, by 2010 the debt crisis in the eurozone caused interest from Poland, as well as the Czech Republic, to cool. Lithuania adopted the euro in 2015.

This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version. View Full Document Non-member usage The euro is also used in countries outside the EU. Four states – Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, and Vatican City have signed formal agreements with the EU to use the euro and issue their own coins. Nevertheless, they are not considered part of the eurozone by the ECB and do not have a seat in the ECB or Euro Group. Kosovo and Montenegro officially adopted the euro as their sole currency without an agreement and, therefore, have no issuing rights. These states are not considered part of the eurozone by the ECB. However, sometimes the term eurozone is applied to all territories that have adopted the euro as their sole currency.Further unilateral adoption of the euro (euroisation), by both non-euro EU and non-EU members, is opposed by the ECB and EU. Expulsion and secession Although the eurozone is open to all EU member states to join once they meet the criteria, the treaty is silent on the matter of states leaving the eurozone, neither prohibiting nor permitting it.

Likewise there is no provision for a state to be expelled from the euro.Some, however, including the Dutch government, favour such a provision being created in the event that a heavily indebted state in the eurozone refuses to comply with an EU economic reform policy.Jens Dammann This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document. TERM Our Lady of Fatima University, Antipolo City BANKING 101 - Summer 2015 Canadian Dollar History Importance of the Canadian Dollar The Canadian Dollar is the Canadian-Dollar-History Eurozone - 必应 Sign in Eurozone The eurozone ( pronunciation (help·info)), officially called the euro area, is a monetary union of 19 of the 28 European Union (EU) member states which have adopted the euro (€) as their common currency and sole legal tender. The other nine members of the European Union continue to use their own national currencies. The eurozone consists of Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Spain. Other EU states ...

(展开) (except for Denmark and the United Kingdom) are obliged to join once they meet the criteria to do so. No state has left, and there are no provisions to do so or to be expelled. Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, and Vatican City have formal agreements with the EU to use the euro as their official currency and issue their own coins. Kosovo and Montenegro have adopted the euro unilaterally, but these countries do not officially form part of the eurozone and do not have representation in the European Central Bank (ECB) or in the Eurogroup. The ECB, which is governed by a president and a board of the heads of national central banks, sets the monetary policy of the zone. The principal task of the ECB is to keep inflation under control. Though there is no common representation, governance or fiscal policy for the currency union, some co-operation does take place through the Eurogroup, which makes political decisions regarding the eurozone and the euro. The Eurogroup is composed of the finance ministers of eurozone states, but in emergencies, national leaders also form the Eurogroup.

Since the financial crisis of 2007–08, the eurozone has established and used provisions for granting emergency loans to member states in return for the enactment of economic reforms. The eurozone has also enacted some limited fiscal integration, for example in peer review of each other's national budgets. The issue is political and in a state of flux in terms of what further provisions will be agreed for eurozone reform. 4 2641 ^a GDP in PPP, exports/imports of goods and services excluding intra-EU trade. Inflation HICP figures from the ECB, taken from May of each year: Interest rates Interest rates for the eurozone, set by the ECB since 1999. Levels are in percentages per annum. Between June 2000 and October 2... 来自 百度百科 4 ^a GDP in PPP, exports/imports of goods and services excluding intra-EU trade. Inflation HICP figures from the ECB, taken from May of each year: Interest rates Interest rates for the eurozone, set by the ECB since 1999. Levels are in percentages per annum. Between June 2000 and October 2...

eurozone may lack the capacity to adress the crisis.欧元区也许缺少解决这厂危机的才能。 请问这个句子的adress怎么解释的在句子。 答 How to address the issue&#47，‘address, 等等，表达“解决/problem/处理，a&#39。与名词不同的地方是读音。”比如;tough relationships between x and yaddress 用作动词; 而动词的重音则在第二节，名词的重音在第一节 The contrast between the issues facing the eurozone and the Chinese economy could hardly be more stark. 句子结构帮我屡一下 尤其是the issues facing。。这句还有stark 这个词怎么用的？ 答 1. face:.... if you face a particular situation, or it faces you....[OALD],sth face sb/sth=sb/sth be faced with sth, 这里the issues facing the eurozone and the Chinese economy 是face的现在分词作定语，为主...

Eurozone Member states In 1998 eleven member states of the European Union had met the euro convergence criteria, and the eurozone came into existence with the official launch of the euro (alongside national currencies) on 1 January 1999. Greece qualified in 2000 and was admitted on 1 January 2001 before physical notes and coins were introduced on 1 January 2002 replacing all national currencies. Between 2007 and 2015, seven new states acceded. The 2012 data above of eurozone states were published by World Bank in May 2014. Latvia and Lithuania were not in the eurozone in 2012. Enlargement Main article: Enlargement of the eurozone Nine countries (Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Sweden, and the United Kingdom) are EU members but do not use the euro. Before joining the eurozone, a state must spend two years in the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM II). As of January 2016, only the National Central Bank (NCB) of Denmark participates in ERM II.

Denmark and the United Kingdom obtained special opt-outs in the original Maastricht Treaty. Both countries are legally exempt from joining the eurozone unless their governments decide otherwise, either by parliamentary vote or referendum. Sweden, which joined the EU in 1995 after the Maastricht Treaty was signed, is required to join the eurozone under the terms of its accession treaty as soon as it fulfils the convergence criteria, which include being part of ERM II for two years. However, the Swedish people turned down euro adoption in a 2003 referendum and since then the country has intentionally avoided fulfilling the adoption requirements by not joining ERM II, which is voluntary. Interest in joining the eurozone increased in Denmark, and initially in Poland, as a result of the 2008 financial crisis. In Iceland, there was an increase in interest in joining the European Union, a pre-condition for adopting the euro. However, by 2010 the debt crisis in the eurozone caused interest from Poland, as well as the Czech Republic, to cool. Lithuania adopted the euro in 2015.

Non-member usage Further information: International status and usage of the euro The euro is also used in countries outside the EU. Four states – Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, and Vatican City — have signed formal agreements with the EU to use the euro and issue their own coins. Nevertheless, they are not considered part of the eurozone by the ECB and do not have a seat in the ECB or Euro Group. Kosovo[h] and Montenegro officially adopted the euro as their sole currency without an agreement and, therefore, have no issuing rights. These states are not considered part of the eurozone by the ECB. However, sometimes the term eurozone is applied to all territories that have adopted the euro as their sole currency. Further unilateral adoption of the euro (euroisation), by both non-euro EU and non-EU members, is opposed by the ECB and EU. Eurozone Administration and representation Further information: European Central Bank, Eurogroup and Euro summit The monetary policy of all countries in the eurozone is managed by the European Central Bank (ECB) and the Eurosystem which comprises the ECB and the central banks of the EU states who have joined the eurozone. Countries outside the eurozone are not represented in these institutions.

Whereas all EU member states are part of the European System of Central Banks (ESCB). Non EU member states have no say in all three institutions, even those with monetary agreements such as Monaco. The ECB is entitled to authorise the design and printing of euro banknotes and the volume of euro coins minted, and its president is currently Mario Draghi. The eurozone is represented politically by its finance ministers, known collectively as the Eurogroup, and is presided over by a president, currently Jeroen Dijsselbloem. The finance ministers of the EU member states that use the euro meet a day before a meeting of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council (Ecofin) of the Council of the European Union. The Group is not an official Council formation but when the full EcoFin council votes on matters only affecting the eurozone, only Euro Group members are permitted to vote on it. Since the global financial crisis of 2007–08, the Euro Group has met irregularly not as finance ministers, but as heads of state and government (like the European Council). It is in this forum, the Euro summit, that many eurozone reforms have been decided upon.

In 2011, former French President Nicolas Sarkozy pushed for these summits to become regular and twice a year in order for it to be a 'true economic government'. In April 2008 in Brussels, Juncker suggested that the eurozone should be represented at the International Monetary Fund as a bloc, rather than each member state separately: "It is absurd for those 15 countries not to agree to have a single representation at the IMF. It makes us look absolutely ridiculous. We are regarded as buffoons on the international scene." However Finance Commissioner Joaquín Almunia stated that before there is common representation, a common political agenda should be agreed upon. Eurozone Bailout provisions See also: History of the euro § Recession era The financial crisis of 2007–08 prompted a number of reforms in the eurozone. One was a u-turn on the eurozone's bailout policy that led to the creation of a specific fund to assist eurozone states in trouble.

The European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) and the European Financial Stability Mechanism (EFSM) were created in 2010 to provide, alongside the International Monetary Fund (IMF), a system and fund to bail out members. However the EFSF and EFSM were temporary, small and lacked a basis in the EU treaties. Therefore, it was agreed in 2011 to establish a European Stability Mechanism (ESM) which would be much larger, funded only by eurozone states (not the EU as a whole as the EFSF/EFSM were) and would have a permanent treaty basis. As a result of that its creation involved agreeing an amendment to TEFU Article 136 allowing for the ESM and a new ESM treaty to detail how the ESM would operate. If both are successfully ratified according to schedule, the ESM would be operational by the time the EFSF/EFSM expire in mid-2013.

Eurozone Peer review See also: Euro Plus Pact Strong EU oversight in the fields of taxation and budgetary policy and the enforcement mechanisms that go with it have sometimes been described as potential infringements on the sovereignty of eurozone member states However, in June 2010, a broad agreement was finally reached on a controversial proposal for member states to peer review each other's budgets prior to their presentation to national parliaments. Although showing the entire budget to each other was opposed by Germany, Sweden and the UK, each government would present to their peers and the Commission their estimates for growth, inflation, revenue and expenditure levels six months before they go to national parliaments. If a country was to run a deficit, they would have to justify it to the rest of the EU while countries with a debt more than 60% of GDP would face greater scrutiny. The plans would apply to all EU members, not just the eurozone, and have to be approved by EU leaders along with proposals for states to face sanctions before they reach the 3% limit in the Stability and Growth Pact. Poland has criticised the idea of withholding regional funding for those who break the deficit limits, as that would only impact the poorer states.

In June 2010 France agreed to back Germany's plan for suspending the voting rights of members who breach the rules. In March 2011 was initiated a new reform of the Stability and Growth Pact aiming at straightening the rules by adopting an automatic procedure for imposing of penalties in case of breaches of either the deficit or the debt rules. Eurozone Criticism Nobel prize-winning economist James Tobin thought that the euro project would not succeed without making drastic changes to European institutions, pointing out the difference between the US and the eurozone. Concerning monetary policies, the US central bank FRB aims at both growth and reducing unemployment, while the ECB tends to give its first priority to price stability under Bundesbank's supervision. As the price level of the currency bloc is kept low, the unemployment level of the region becomes higher than that of US since 1982. See also: Phillips curve and Nominal rigidity When it comes to fiscal policies, the 12 percent of the US federal budget is used for transfers to states and local governments. And when a state has financial or economic difficulties, a fair amount of money is automatically transferred to the state. The US government does not impose restrictions on state budget policies.

This is different from the fiscal policies of the eurozone, where Treaty of Maastricht requires each eurozone member country to run its budget deficit smaller than 3 percent of its GDP. Eurozone Notes ^ The self-declared Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is not recognised by the EU and uses the Turkish lira. However the euro does circulate widely. ^ a b c French Pacific territories use the CFP franc, which is pegged to the euro.(1 franc = 0.00838 euro) ^ Uses the Swiss franc. However the euro is also accepted and circulates widely. ^ Aruba is part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, but not the EU. It uses the Aruban florin, which is pegged to the US dollar.(1 dollar = 1.79 florins) ^ a b Currently uses the Netherlands Antillean guilder and plans to introduce the Caribbean guilder in 2014; [needs update] both are pegged to the US dollar.(1 dollar = 1.79 guilder) ^ Uses the US Dollar. ^ Kosovo is the subject of a territorial dispute between the Republic of Kosovo and the Republic of Serbia.

The Republic of Kosovo unilaterally declared independence on 17 February 2008, but Serbia continues to claim it as part of its own sovereign territory. The two governments began to normalise relations in 2013, as part of the Brussels Agreement. Kosovo has been recognised as an independent state by 108 out of 193 United Nations member states. ^ Kosovo is the subject of a territorial dispute between the Republic of Kosovo and the Republic of Serbia. The Republic of Kosovo unilaterally declared independence on 17 February 2008, but Serbia continues to claim it as part of its own sovereign territory. The two governments began to normalise relations in 2013, as part of the Brussels Agreement. Kosovo has been recognised as an independent state by 108 out of 193 United Nations member states. ^ The ECB announced on 22 December 1998 that, between 4 and 21 January 1999, there would be a narrow corridor of 50 base points interest rates for the marginal lending facility and the deposit facility in order to help the transition to the ECB's interest regime.

^ "Total population as of 1 January. Euro area (19 countries)". Epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu. ^ "Gross domestic product at market prices". Epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu. ^ a b Key ECB interest rates, ECB ^ HICP – all items – annual average inflation rate Eurostat ^ Harmonised unemployment rate by gender – total – [teilm020,; Total% (SA) Eurostat ^ For the whole of 2012. Euroindicators 15 February 2013, Eurostat ^ "Countries, languages, currencies". Interinstitutional style guide. the EU Publications Office. Retrieved 2 February 2009. The euro area, European Central Bank ^ "Who can join and when?". European Commission. Retrieved 2012-09-10. ^ Fox, Benjamin (1 February 2013). "Dutch PM: Eurozone needs exit clause". EUobserver.com. Retrieved 18 June 2013. ^ a b "Agreements on monetary relations (Monaco, San Marino, the Vatican and Andorra)". European Communities.

30 September 2004. Retrieved 12 September 2006. ^ "The government announces a contest for the design of the Andorran euros". Andorra Mint. 2013-03-19. Retrieved 2013-03-26. ^ "Nouvelles d'Andorre" (in French). 2013-02-01. Retrieved 2013-02-02.[dead link] ^ a b c "The euro outside the euro area". Europa (web portal). Retrieved 26 February 2011. ^ A glossary issued by the ECB defines "euro area", without mention of Monaco, San Marino, or the Vatican. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k "COUNCIL DECISION of 3 May 1998 in accordance with Article 109j(4) of the Treaty". Official Journal of the European Union L (139/30). 1998-05-11. Retrieved 2014-10-27.

^ "COUNCIL DECISION of 10 July 2007 in accordance with Article 122(2) of the Treaty on the adoption by Cyprus of the single currency on 1 January 2008". Official Journal of the European Union L (186/29). 2007-07-18. Retrieved 2014-10-27. ^ "COUNCIL DECISION of 13 July 2010 in accordance with Article 140(2) of the Treaty on the adoption by Estonia of the euro on 1 January 2011". Official Journal of the European Union L (196/24). 2010-07-28. Retrieved 2014-10-27. ^ "COUNCIL DECISION of 19 June 2000 in accordance with Article 122(2) of the Treaty on the adoption by Greece of the single currency on 1 January 2001". Official Journal of the European Union L (167/19).

2000-07-07. Retrieved 2014-10-27. ^ "COUNCIL DECISION of 9 July 2013 on the adoption by Latvia of the euro on 1 January 2014". Official Journal of the European Union L (195/24). 2013-07-18. Retrieved 2014-10-27. ^ "COUNCIL DECISION of 23 July 2014 on the adoption by Lithuania of the euro on 1 January 2015". Official Journal of the European Union L (228/29). 2014-07-31. Retrieved 2014-12-31. ^ "COUNCIL DECISION of 10 July 2007 in accordance with Article 122(2) of the Treaty on the adoption by Malta of the single currency on 1 January 2008". Official Journal of the European Union L (186/32). 2007-07-18.

Retrieved 2014-10-27. ^ "COUNCIL DECISION of 8 July 2008 in accordance with Article 122(2) of the Treaty on the adoption by Slovakia of the single currency on 1 January 2009". Official Journal of the European Union L (195/24). 2008-07-24. Retrieved 2014-10-27. ^ "COUNCIL DECISION of 11 July 2006 in accordance with Article 122(2) of the Treaty on the adoption by Slovenia of the single currency on 1 January 2007". Official Journal of the European Union L (195/25). 2006-07-15. Retrieved 2014-10-27. ^ "Sverige sa nej till euron" (in Swedish). Swedish Parliament. 28 August 2013. Retrieved 12 August 2014. ^ "Information on ERM II". European Commission. 22 December 2009.

Retrieved 16 January 2010. ^ Dougherty, Carter (1 December 2008). "Buffeted by financial crisis, countries seek euro's shelter". International Herald Tribune. Retrieved 2 December 2008.[dead link] ^ "Czechs, Poles cooler to euro as they watch debt crisis". Reuters. 16 June 2010. Retrieved 18 June 2010. ^ "Eurozone's newest member: Lithuania". CNNMoney. 2 January 2015. Retrieved 2 January 2015. ^ "European Foundation Intelligence Digest". Europeanfoundation.org. Retrieved 30 May 2010.[dead link] ^ "Euro used as legal tender in non-EU nations". International Herald Tribune. 1 January 2007. Retrieved 22 November 2010.[dead link] ^ "Europe, The eurozone's 13th member". BBC News. 11 December 2001. Retrieved 30 May 2010. ^ "Unilateral Euroization By Iceland Comes With Real Costs And Serious Risks". Lawofemu.info.

15 February 2008. Archived from the original on 14 March 2012. Retrieved 28 February 2015. ^ Athanassiou, Phoebus (December 2009) Withdrawal and Expulsion from the EU and EMU, Some Reflections (PDF), European Central Bank. Retrieved 8 September 2011 ^ Phillips, Leigh. "EUobserver / Netherlands: Indebted states must be made ‘wards’ of the commission or leave euro". Euobserver.com. Retrieved 2014-05-20. ^ Dammann, Jens (February 10, 2012). "The Right to Leave the Eurozone". U of Texas Law, Public Law Research Paper. 2013 48 (2). Retrieved 18 June 2013. ^ Eichengreen, Barry (23 July 2011) Can the Euro Area Hit the Rewind Button? (PDF), University of California. Retrieved 8 September 2011 ^ Wallop, Harry (2012-05-29).

"De La Rue silent on deal to print Drachma". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 2015-02-11. ^ "Take the money and run". The Economist. 2015-01-28. Retrieved 2015-02-11. ^ Treaty of Lisbon (Provisions specific to member states whose currency is the euro), EurLex Archived 27 March 2009 at the Wayback Machine ^ "An economic government for the eurozone?" (PDF). Federal Union. Retrieved 26 February 2011. ^ Protocols, Official Journal of the European Union ^ a b Elitsa Vucheva (15 April 2008). "Eurozone countries should speak with one voice, Juncker says". EU Observer. Retrieved 26 February 2011. ^ "ECB: Structure of the euro area economy". Ecb.europa.eu. Retrieved 2014-05-20. ^ Data (1985-04-04). "GDP, PPP (current international $) | Data | Table". Data.worldbank.org.

Retrieved 2014-05-20. ^ Figures from the October 2014 update of the International Monetary Fund's World Economic Outlook Database. for the countries of the world. Retrieved 1 January 2015. ^ European Central Bank (14 December 2007). "Euro area (changing composition) – HICP – Overall index, Annual rate of change, Eurostat, Neither seasonally or working day adjusted". Retrieved 9 September 2011. ^ October 2008 "The World Factbook – (Rank Order – Public debt)" Check |archiveurl= value (help). Archived from the original on 15 October 2008. Retrieved 15 October 2008. (all estimates 2007 data unless noted) ^ "Annex Table 33. General government net financial liabilities". 2 January 2011.[dead link] ^ ""Annex Table 32. General government gross financial liabilities" in OECD Economic Outlook". OECD. Archived from the original on 24 December 2010. Retrieved 2 January 2011.

^ "Report for Selected Countries and Subjects". IMF. Retrieved 11 December 2008. (General government gross debt 2008 estimates rounded to one decimal place) ^ "The World Factbook – (Rank Order – Public debt)". Archived from the original on 2 January 2011. Retrieved 2 January 2011.(all estimates 2009 data unless noted) ^ "General government debt". Eurostat. Retrieved 28 May 2011. (General government gross debt 2009 estimates rounded to one decimal place) ^ "Key figures on Europe 2012". Eurostat. Retrieved 14 February 2013. ^ "Public Information Notice: IMF Executive Board Concludes 2010 Article IV Consultation with Austria". Imf.org. Retrieved 17 May 2012. ^ "Public Information Notice: IMF Executive Board Concludes 2009 Article IV Consultation with Belgium". Imf.org. Retrieved 17 May 2012. ^ "IMF Executive Board Concludes 2010 Article IV Consultation with Cyprus".

Imf.org. Retrieved 17 May 2012. ^ "State of the Union: Can the euro zone survive its debt crisis? (p.4)" (PDF). Economist Intelligence Unit. 1 March 2011. Retrieved 1 December 2011. ^ "Public Information Notice: IMF Executive Board Concludes 2010 Article IV Consultation with Finland". Imf.org. Retrieved 17 May 2012. ^ "Public Information Notice: IMF Executive Board Concludes 2010 Article IV Consultation with France". Imf.org. Retrieved 17 May 2012. ^ "Public Information Notice: IMF Executive Board Concludes 2010 Article IV Consultation with Germany". Imf.org. Retrieved 17 May 2012. ^ "Public Information Notice: IMF Executive Board Concludes 2010 Article IV Consultation with Ireland". Imf.org. Retrieved 17 May 2012. ^ "Public Information Notice: IMF Executive Board Concludes 2010 Article IV Consultation with Italy". Imf.org.

Retrieved 17 May 2012. ^ "Public Information Notice: IMF Executive Board Concludes 2010 Article IV Consultation with Luxembourg". Imf.org. Retrieved 17 May 2012. ^ "Kingdom of the Netherlands—Netherlands: 2009 Article IV Consultation—Staff Report; Staff Statement; Public Information Notice on the Executive Board Discussion; and Statement by the Executive Director for the Kingdom of the Netherlands—Netherlands; IMF Country Report 10/34; December15, 2009" (PDF). Retrieved 18 May 2011. ^ "Public Information Notice: IMF Executive Board Concludes 2009 Article IV Consultation with Portugal". Imf.org. Retrieved 17 May 2012. ^ "Public Information Notice: IMF Executive Board Concludes 2010 Article IV Consultation with the Slovak Republic". Imf.org. Retrieved 17 May 2012. ^ "Public Information Notice: IMF Executive Board Concludes 2010 Article IV Consultation with Spain". Imf.org.

Retrieved 17 May 2012. ^ "European Council Press release on the creation of a fiscal union". Consilium.europa.eu. 9 December 2011. Retrieved 17 May 2012. ^ Fiscal union will never fix a dysfunctional eurozone, warns ex-IMF chief Blanchard M. Khan, The Daily Telegraph, Finance, 10 Oct 2015 ^ "New EU members to break free from euro duty". Euractiv.com. 13 September 2011. Retrieved 7 September 2013. ^ (English)"see Ionescu Romeo, "Romania and Greece: Together or Alone", AJBM Vol. 4(19), p. 4197, December 2010 [Quoting Q1 2010 article (in French) by M. Nicolas J. Firzli in Revue Analyse Financière]" (PDF). Retrieved 29 March 2011.

^ a b EU agrees controversial peer review of national budgets, EU Observer ^ Willis, Andrew (15 June 2010) Merkel: Spain can access aid if needed, EU Observer ^ "Council reaches agreement on measures to strengthen economic governance" (PDF). Retrieved 18 May 2011. ^ Jan Strupczewski (15 March 2011). "EU finmins adopt tougher rules against debt, imbalance". Uk.finance.yahoo.com. Retrieved 18 May 2011.[dead link] ^ a b c J. Tobin, Policy Opinions, 31 (2001) ^ This Prediction about the Euro Deserves a ‘Nostradamus Award’ W. Richter, Wolf Street, 16 Jul 2015 The eurozone ( pronunciation (help · info)), officially called the euro area, is a monetary union of 19 of the 28 European Union (EU) member states which ...

25 posts · First post: 2016-12-30 2017-1-9 · If you could impose one major reform on any eurozone economy, what would it be? Friday, 30 December, 2016. Save. Friday, 30 December, 2016. Eurozone economy. 一款最高效、最轻松的在线背单词系统，能飞背单词为您提供eurozone,eurozone是什么意思、eurozone中文翻译、解释、eurozone用法、eurozone在线读音、eurozone同 ... word.langfly.com/w/eurozone The euro is managed and administered by the Frankfurt-based European Central Bank (ECB) and the Eurosystem (composed of the central banks of the eurozone ... Opt-outs in the European Union - The Full Wiki 7 External links Current opt-outs As of 2007, two states have formal opt-outs from the Schengen acquis and the common currency , while Denmark secured three additional opt-outs along with its euro opt-out. Sweden is in a special situation which amounts to a de facto opt-out.

Advertisements Schengen Agreement – Ireland and United Kingdom The Schengen Agreement abolished border controls between member states. Ireland and the United Kingdom have opt-outs from implementation of the Schengen acquis, though Ireland only joined the UK in adopting this opt-out to keep the Ireland–United Kingdom Common Travel Area in effect. [1] With the possible dissolution of the Common Travel Area in the future, [2] Ireland technically may no longer maintain its opt-out from the Schengen Agreement, as agreed in the Treaty of Amsterdam . [3] However, in response to a question on the issue, the Irish Taoiseach stated: "On the question of whether this is the end of the common travel area and should we join Schengen, the answer is "no"." [4] The opt-out has been criticised in the United Kingdom for hampering the United Kingdom's capabilities in stopping transnational crime through the inability to access the Schengen Information System . [5] Economic and Monetary Union United Kingdom The Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) replaced national currencies with the euro . At present all but two members are obliged to join, the two members being the United Kingdom and Denmark (cf. Edinburgh Agreement below).

The UK secured an opt-out from having to introduce the euro in the initial Maastricht Treaty negotiations, [1] while Denmark did so later (see below). The Labour Party governments under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have made a move to introduce the euro contingent on approval in a referendum, [6] which will only be held after five economic tests devised by then- Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown have been met; the last assessment of the five economic tests (completed in June 2003) concluded that only one of the five had been met at that point, but that fulfilling two of the other four would ensure that the last two would also be fulfilled. [7] Sweden Sweden , while not formally having negotiated an opt-out on this matter, did not join ERM II and thus deliberately failed to fulfil the criteria for introducing the euro ; Sweden later voted against euro introduction in a referendum in 2003, and the issue is currently dormant. The European Commission and the European Central Bank have stated they would tacitly accept this derogation for the time being.

Swedish governments have repeatedly stated they will only introduce the euro after a referendum approving this move has been held, and there are no plans for this to occur before the next election in 2010 . [8] Edinburgh Agreement – Denmark Denmark obtained four opt-outs from the Maastricht Treaty following the treaty's initial rejection in a 1992 referendum . The opt-outs are outlined in the Edinburgh Agreement and concern the EMU (as above), the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP), Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) and the citizenship of the European Union . With these opt-outs the Danish people accepted the treaty in a second referendum held in 1993 . The EMU opt-out means Denmark is not obliged to participate in the third phase of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism , i. e. to replace the Danish krone with the euro . The abolition of the euro opt-out was put to a referendum in 2000 and was rejected. The ESDP opt-out originally meant Denmark would not be obliged to join the Western European Union (which originally handled the defence tasks of the EU). Now it means that Denmark does not participate in the European Union's foreign policy where defence is concerned.

Hence it does not take part in decisions, does not act in that area and does not contribute troops to missions conducted under the auspices of the European Union. The JHA opt-out exempts Denmark from certain areas of home affairs. Significant parts of these areas were transferred from the third European Union pillar to the first under the Amsterdam Treaty ; Denmark's opt-outs from these areas were kept valid through additional protocols. Acts made under those powers are not binding on Denmark except for those relating to Schengen, which are instead conducted on an intergovernmental basis with Denmark. Under the Treaty of Lisbon , Denmark can change its JHA opt-out from a complete opt-out to the case-by-case opt-in version applying to Ireland and the United Kingdom whenever they wish. [9] The citizenship opt-out stated that European citizenship did not replace national citizenship; this opt-out was rendered meaningless when the Amsterdam Treaty adopted the same wording for all members. The current government has been planning to hold a second referendum on abolishing the opt-outs (or at least the euro opt-out) since at least 2004, following a change in public opinion, but the discussions and controversy regarding the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe and the Treaty of Lisbon have delayed this.

[10] Following the 2007 parliamentary elections , Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen announced on 22 November 2007 his intention to hold a referendum on the opt-outs following the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon. [11] A poll in the same month found 52% for dropping the euro opt-out (39% against), 46% for dropping the defence opt-out (38% against) and 51% against dropping the judiciary opt-out (32% for). [12] Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Poland and the United Kingdom Both Poland and the United Kingdom had originally opted out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union , a part of the Treaty of Lisbon, meaning that European courts would not be able to rule on issues related to the Charter if they are brought to courts in Poland or the UK. [13] Poland's ruling party, Law and Justice , mainly noted concerns that it might force Poland to grant homosexual couples the same kind of benefits which heterosexual couples enjoy, [14] while the UK was worried that the Charter might be used to alter British labour law, especially as relates to allowing more strikes.

[15] The European Scrutiny Committee of the British House of Commons , including members of both the Labour Party and the Conservative Party , has however cast doubts on the provision's text, asserting that the opt-out might not be worded strongly and clearly enough to achieve the government's aims. [16] [17] [18] After the Civic Platform won the 2007 parliamentary election in Poland , it announced that it would not opt out from the Charter, leaving the UK as the only state not to adopt it. [19] However, Donald Tusk , the new Prime Minister and leader of the Civic Platform, later qualified that pledge, stating he would consider the risks before signing the Charter, [20] and on 23 November 2007 he announced that he would not sign the Charter after all (despite the fact that both his party and their coalition partner, the Polish People's Party , were in favour of signing the Charter), stating that he wanted to honour the deals negotiated by the previous government and that he needed the support of Law and Justice to gain the two-thirds majority necessary to ratify the Treaty of Lisbon in the Parliament of Poland .

[21] He later clarified that he may sign up to the Charter after successful ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon has taken place. [22] Police and Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters – Ireland and the United Kingdom Ireland and the United Kingdom have opted out from the change from unanimous decisions to qualified majority voting in the sector of Police and Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters ; this decision will be reviewed in Ireland three years after the treaty enters into force. [23] Both states can opt in on these voting issues on a case-by-case basis. [24] Future opt-outs: Next European Union treaty During the ratification process of the Treaty of Lisbon, the Czech President Václav Klaus negotiated an opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union similar to that of Poland and the United Kingdom. However, it was at that point too late to include the opt-out in the Treaty of Lisbon itself, so it will instead be formalised following the adoption of the next European Union treaty, which is presumably an accession treaty for a future European Union member state.

[25] Similarly, Ireland needed some extra provisions in order to ratify the treaty (following the failure of the first referendum in 2008, guarantees were formalised prior to the successful second referendum in 2009). Although these guarantees do not constitute an opt-out, they are also likely to be ratified in the next European Union treaty. [26] Former opt-outs The United Kingdom had an opt-out from the Social Chapter , negotiated by John Major in 1991; [27] Tony Blair abolished this opt-out immediately after coming to power in the 1997 general election . [28] Table — fully participating in policy area — de jure opt-out in place — de facto opt-out in place • de facto — de facto only, still legally binding but not enforced. • de jure only — de jure only; common citizenship subsequently adopted by all members. • post-N — following coming into force of the next European Union treaty (probably an accession treaty). • opt-in — possibility to opt-in on a case-by-case basis. • tbr-L — may be reviewed after successful ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon .

• tbr-10 — to be reviewed in a referendum , likely to be held in 2010. • tbr-12 — to be reviewed in 2012. See also Opting out , a similar concept in Canadian politics Nullification (U.S. Constitution) , a related concept in United States politics References Reinventing Europe: Denmark caught between ‘ins’ and ‘outs’ | European Council on Foreign Relations Reinventing Europe: Denmark caught between ‘ins’ and ‘outs’ Commentary Print As part of the ’Reinventing Europe' project, ECFR is publishing a series of papers on the national debates within EU member states over the crisis and the future direction of Europe. In the tenth of the series Lykke Friis and Jonas Parello-Plesner analyse the situation in Denmark. As part of the ’ Reinventing Europe ' project, ECFR is publishing a series of papers on the national debates within EU member states over the crisis and the future direction of Europe. In the tenth of the series Lykke Friis and Jonas Parello-Plesner analyse the situation in Denmark. A pdf of the essay can be found here .

Also click here to go to essays examining the situation within Italy, the Netherlands, Germany, Greece, Poland, the Czech Republic and Bulgaria, and related papers looking at Spain and the UK. Other essays in this series will also be emailed directly to those who have subscribed to our weekly updates. Denmark caught between ‘ins’ and ‘outs’ Forty years ago, in October 1972, the Danish people voted to join the European Community (joining a few months later in 1973, along with the UK and Ireland). But four decades on opinion polls suggest that Danish support for European integration is now at its lowest level since then. Denmark is in a tricky position between the ‘ins’ and ‘outs’: there is insufficient public support for joining the Eurozone countries as they make an integrationist jump towards banking and political union; however the path that its traditional ally, the UK, seems to have chosen – that of wanting to renegotiate a looser form of membership – is regarded as a dead-end by governing elites.

Instead, the Danish government has hoped that discussions about a new treaty would simply go away, leaving the EU frozen as it is with Denmark able to continue its Swiss-cheese version of EU membership, including opt-outs on the euro, defence and legal affairs. This situation is unsustainable, and leaves Denmark vulnerable to being swept up by decisions made elsewhere in Europe without the chance to shape them. A model pupil that avoids the F-words Denmark’s stance on EU affairs is paradoxical. In many ways it is a model pupil, and its EU presidencies have driven the EU forward, for instance on enlargement in both 1993 and 2002. It is often top of the class for following EU rules and applying them to national legislation. Denmark has actively shaped the agenda on issues like climate change and the environment (a Danish Commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, runs the EU’s climate change negotiations). As a small state, Denmark has also backed the EU’s role as a vehicle for foreign policy influence. It is also scrupulous on budgetary issues, and is the only EU country that currently fulfils the original admission criteria for joining the euro (its peg to the euro makes Denmark a de-facto euro country with national coins).

However many Danes have always remained sceptical about the EU’s founding vision of an ‘ever closer political union’. Danish politicians steer clear of F-words like Federation, Foreign Minister (like the UK Danes prefer to call Catherine Ashton the ‘High Representative for Foreign Affairs’) and Flag (the EU flag rarely flies except on Schuman day). There were also years of resistance before car number plates bore the EU stars around the letters ‘DK’. Some suggest that this recalcitrance dates back to the 1970s, when EC accession was packaged with selling Danish agricultural produce. Integration was pragmatic, based around the single market and strong support for enlargement. Multi-speed Europe started with Denmark The most discernible split in attitudes to the EU is not so much between political parties but between political elites and the population. Most parties in parliament favour further integration, despite the euro crisis curbing their enthusiasm, with the Danish people more prone to step on the brake when consulted. Unlike the majority of EU-member states Denmark has a tradition of putting EU questions to a popular vote. Although the present score is 4-2 to the ‘yes’ side, the government has lost two important referendums.

The first time the public said ‘nej’ was with the Maastricht treaty in 1992. This lead to a ‘yes’ in a second referendum in which several Danish opt-outs were included (on defence, justice and home affairs and monetary union). These Danish opt-outs were the legal foundation of two-speed Europe. In a separate referendum on the euro in 2000, voters opted to keep Denmark’s national currency, the krone. Due to its opt-outs Denmark is now outside the euro (and the all-important Eurozone group), and cannot participate in military operations under an EU flag. (The Danish soldiers who took part in NATO missions in Macedonia and Bosnia had to be withdrawn when the missions were handed over to the EU.) Arguably the opt-out on justice and home affairs has the largest impact on Denmark. For instance, Denmark is unable to participate in the EU’s fight against human trafficking, and once Europol cooperation is upgraded Denmark will have to opt out. Unlike the UK, Denmark is obliged to opt out of all supranational legal cooperation and is not able to decide on a case-by-case basis whether it wants to opt-in.

A standing commitment among the main parties to put the opt-outs to a popular vote has not led to any new referendums (despite a manifesto commitment by Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s government (2001-2009)). The current coalition government of Helle Thorning-Schmidt (a Social Democrat) also planned a referendum on the defence and justice and home affairs opt-outs, but this was suspended after the Danish EU-presidency ended in July. The official reason was uncertainty in the EU; the lack of popular support for the government and the EU in general probably contributed to the decision. The nominal drive by elites for further Danish integration is therefore off the table for the foreseeable future, and there is also rising euroscepticism within traditionally pro-EU parties. In the past centre-right parties (Conservatives, Liberals, Social/Liberals) tended to be more in favour of the EU, with those towards the left more sceptical. The populist (and largely eurosceptic) Danish People’s Party (led until August by Pia Kjærsgaard) is the only party that has suggested following the UK in renegotiating Danish membership of the EU.

Today, however, eurosceptical winds also blow among the centre-right parties, often coupled with demands for deregulation. At a recent party conference the leadership of the Conservatives was voted down by the grass roots over the abolition of the EU opt-outs. Søren Pape, the Conservative mayor of Viborg, noted that ‘many Conservatives don’t find that the EU should tinker with everything’. Similarly, a small Danish liberal party (Liberal Alliance) that was founded in 2008 has a staunch policy against ever joining the euro, seeing European monetary union as a flawed economic experiment. The EU will move on; will Denmark too? The Danish debate has been somewhat decoupled from mainstream Europe. When the Lisbon Treaty came into force, the Danish government and most politicians told the population that this was the final cornerstone of European integration. Although that seemed a reasonable assumption in 2008, the euro crisis has fundamentally changed the landscape and breathed life into a new push for further integration. José Manuel Barroso now speaks of a ‘federation of nation states’, while Angela Merkel suggests that political union and treaty changes are the next steps. This leaves Denmark in a difficult position.

It cannot be placed in the current categories of ‘ins’, ‘outs’ and ‘pre-ins’. Unlike the other two ‘outs’, the UK and Sweden, Denmark has signed up to both the euro-plus pact and the Fiscal Compact. But unlike the ‘pre-ins’ (such as Poland) Denmark has not shown much sign of pushing for future membership of the euro (where it looks more like an ‘out’). Indeed the current three-party coalition is so divided on the issue that the word ‘euro’ does not appear in its government manifesto. Denmark’s rejection of the need to re-examine the treaties is also markedly different from the UK’s push for Eurozone countries to save the euro by moving ahead with further integration (just without the UK). The new mantra of Danish politics concerning the EU is “let’s just use the mechanisms that we have already agreed upon” (six-pack, two-pack, fiscal compact), or – in short – “let’s wait and see”. A perfect illustration of Denmark’s slightly schizophrenic position was given when the German foreign minister invited the Danish foreign minister, Villy Soevndal, to contribute to the writing of a blueprint for a future Europe.

Soevndal participated in this group and signed up to ‘federalist’ paper before debunking its content in the Danish press as pipe dreams (particularly regarding a European army and the need for another treaty). Denmark’s wishful thinking that EU integration will stand still is impractical but understandable. With opinion polls indicating that less than a quarter of Danes would vote for membership of the euro, the government is acutely aware that a referendum is unwinnable. This means that further EU integration threatens to push Denmark even further to the margins, jeopardising an export-driven economy that is heavily dependent upon being at the heart of decision making and reassuring financial markets that the government will not pursue a less stringent economic policy than Eurozone members. Measures such as a banking union that is restricted to the Eurozone and a special ‘eurobudget’ are therefore particularly scary for Danish finance ministers. But as Denmark is the founding father of a two-speed Europe it has no credibility in appealing to the Eurozone to keep the EU27 together.

(A high level German official told one of the authors of this paper that “You started all this, when you requested your opt outs”.) In the run up to the European Council of 17th October 2012 a speech by Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt indicated that the government was departing from the ‘wait and see’ attitude. Speaking at the College of Europe, Thorning-Schmidt acknowledged for the first time that the Eurozone countries would plunge ahead, leading to a multi-speed Europe as the price to pay for saving the euro. At the subsequent Council she attempted to position Denmark with Sweden rather than its old ally, the UK. This signalled an ultimate intention to participate in core elements of the banking union, and a resisting of the temptation of a British renegotiation of membership. Denmark’s political elites are well aware of the possible pitfalls of such a renegotiation. The Norwegian (or Swiss) model may seem attractive to some British Conservatives, but it has no traction within Denmark beyond the Danish People’s Party.

There is an acknowledgement that such a model reduces national influence to cutting and pasting EU legislation without a say at the table (it has been described as a weekly phone call from Brussels about what your Parliament should adopt this week). The desire to highlight the difference between London and Copenhagen was strengthened when the President of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz, and the German finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, suggested that “outs” should not be allowed to participate in meetings on the euro in the European Parliament. The immediate Danish reaction was to loudly proclaim that they were not ‘outs’. The central dilemma for Denmark is that its default position of wishing to freeze the EU in its current configuration denies it an active role in shaping a future EU. Yet change is happening, thanks to the imperative to deal with the euro crisis. This in turn is threatening the European achievements that the Danes wish to safeguard, such as the single market . The carefree years of the early 2000s are well and truly over. Both in her speech at the College of Europe and at the European Council, the prime minister refrained from clarifying where Denmark should position itself in the future of Europe.

The government (and other broadly pro-EU parties) still has to face up to the uncomfortable choices that lie ahead. Will it use the new dynamic in the Eurozone to abandon the current ‘half-in; half-out’ status, and begin making a popular case for an eventual referendum on joining the euro? Or will it, through events in the UK and in the Eurozone, be pushed to the outer layer of EU-membership and accept a dilution of its influence? The only certainty is that the dream scenario – the maintenance of the status quo – is an illusion. But with the Danish political system currently out of sync with both the population and rapid developments in the EU, the Danes may end up in a place in Europe that they neither looked for nor aspired to. ECFR's National Paper series is edited by Nicholas Walton

Question: Which country, along with the UK, obtained special opt-outs from joining the euro in the original Maastricht Treaty?
Answer: Denmark